Examination of witnesses (Questions 205
- 219)
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2000
DR STEPHEN
COLEMAN and DR
PETER BRATT
Chairman
205. May I welcome the Hansard Society to the
Committee this morning. Thank you very much indeed for having
conducted for us, and for our inquiry, your on-line discussion
on electronic democracy. I know that you have come to tell us
about the results of this and talk about some of the general issues
associated with it. I think with that, I am going to hand over
to you and ask you to take us through it.
(Dr Coleman) Thank you very much. In this presentation
we shall attempt to do three things. First of all, to outline
the purpose and methods of the Hansard Society's Electronic Democracy
programme. Secondly, to provide a brief account of evidence collected
during the online discussion which took place between 24 November
and 28 December 1999 for the purpose of gathering evidence for
the Public Administration Committee's inquiry into Innovations
in Citizens Participation in Government. Thirdly, to offer a brief
review of ways in which new information and communication technologies—which
are referred to as ICTs—are being used to invigorate the
democratic process. The first part, which is the Hansard Society's
programme of research and experimentation. (www.hansardsociety.org.uk)
The theme of Electronic Democracy is not an obvious one for the
Hansard Society to have taken up. Indeed, the term "electronic
democracy" is not one that makes a lot of sense to us, although
we use the term because it is widely used. We do not accept what
is essentially a technologically deterministic concept of that
kind. Our main interest is in promoting effective parliamentary
democracy and that is far from being simply a technological issue.
So e-democracy is not something we have taken up because we believe
in technocratic quick fixes. We are interested in this for three
reasons. First of all, we are aware that there is a prevalent
sense on the part of the public that Parliament is in some way
remote from them, that it is not necessarily very interested in
what they have to say. This was one of the main findings from
our research last year into public perceptions of Parliament after
ten years of cameras in the House of Commons. Secondly, the new
communication environment is characterised by the interactive
nature of ICTs. This capacity to link citizens to their representatives,
irrespective of distance or space, offers a possible opportunity
of strengthening the connections that constitute democratic representation.
Thirdly, it is undoubtedly the case that efficient parliamentary
business relies upon the expertise and experience of people beyond
Parliament. The evidence traditionally taken by Select Committees
is a good example of this. It is sometimes said that Parliament
and Government rely too much upon "the usual suspects",
the great and the good, whose knowledge is already respected.
Beyond this group there are undoubtedly others whose voices could
and should usefully be heard. In 1997 the Cabinet Office endorsed
a public consultation, conducted via the Internet by an organisation
UK Citizens Online Democracy, on the Freedom of Information White
Paper that it released in December 1997. UK Citizens Online Democracy
was the world's first national body established to encourage public
deliberation via the internet. The consultation was judged to
have been a great success and the Government has since run several
more of these. Indeed, the Prime Minster at the time said that
he looked forward to these consultations becoming a regular part
of the legislative process. UK Citizens Online Democracy based
its activities on an earlier exercise, the Minnesota e-politics
project which began life in 1995, rather ancient history as far
as the internet is concerned, and became probably the leading
organisation in the world for encouraging citizens' participation
through the new media. At the same time as the UK Citizens Online
Democracy experiment, the BBC was setting up its own online network.
Within two years BBC Online became the largest web site in Europe,
with millions of people accessing it each month. It is now regarded
as the BBC's third service after radio and television. In short,
many of the first and most successful online initiatives have
occurred in the UK and have occurred over the last two and a half
years. Now in relation to e-democracy, e-democracy is something
of a junior partner alongside e-commerce and e-government. E-commerce,
the transaction of sales over the internet and e-government, the
delivery of state services and information through the internet.
In 1998 the Hansard Society collaborated with the Parliamentary
Office of Science and Technology to run a pilot online conference
to discuss the Data Protection Bill. This brought together a number
of lawyers, IT specialists, people involved in privacy not just
in this country but in other countries and was a successful gathering
together of views on the subject. It was an interesting use of
an online discussion linking citizens to the Parliamentary process.
It was decided that more of these would be run. In October last
year, the Hansard Society ran an online discussion, together with
the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology which was open
to women scientists and engineers; in fact it was open to all
scientists and engineers but it was about women in science and
engineering. They were invited to discuss themes related to a
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Women
in Science. The results of that have now been given as evidence
to that committee. Last November the e-democracy online discussion
began. In March of this year we shall be running an online consultation
with women survivors of domestic violence who will be interacting
with the All-Party Domestic Violence Group and, for the first
time ever, able to give evidence through the internet to that
body. There, of course, is quite an important infrastructure connected
with that particular exercise because it means getting computers
into refuges and training for people who are going to have access.
You cannot simply provide access as a rhetorical proposition,
you have to do it in reality. Also forthcoming are online discussions
on the Leasehold Reform Bill and the new legislation on the funding
of referendums. We propose to link in to future select committee
inquiries and other committees. We have plans to run our first
pilot consultation via digital television later in the year. We
have had a provisional agreement from On-digital to enable us
to do that. In running these discussions we have asked ourselves
the following three questions: Firstly, can the new media involve
more people—and diverse sections of the population—in
the democratic process? Secondly, can the participation of citizens
in these discussions contribute to more informed legislation and
Parliamentary scrutiny? Thirdly, do these opportunities for public
involvement via the internet pave the way for more innovative
and democratic uses of the media once analogue television is switched
off, as it relatively soon will be, and digital television, with
its inherent interactivity, becomes almost universal? I now want
to turn to the recent online discussion on electronic democracy.
The 75 participants in this discussion were far from being typical.
They came from the IT industry, the media, academia and the community
networks already used to using the internet—in short, they
were amongst the most wired people in the United Kingdom and they
were used to engaging in online communication. Not everyone is
so familiar with the process, so I would like to turn to my colleague,
Dr Peter Bratt, who is the technical consultant to the Hansard
Society, and ask him to say a few words about how this online
discussion actually took place.
(Dr Bratt) You may or may not be pleased to know I
am not going to look at the technology in detail. I think the
technology is often a hindrance to the understanding of what we
can all do with the technology. In this case I am going to explain
how we put together the Democracy Forum and what we were
trying to achieve. Essentially we had 75 participants who were
all in different places and who all have different availabilities
as far as their time is concerned. What we wanted to do was to
enable them not just to give evidence, but to join in a discussion
between each other, to make statements and refine and develop
those matters through collaboration and discussion and to do so
from their workplace or their home at whatever time suited them.
That, of course, is the classic discussion group concept. I am
going to attempt to now demonstrate this discussion group. Because
we could not organise a telephone line into here this morning
I have a cut down version of this on my machine. Essentially the
part of the Democracy Forum I am going to show you deals
with the export panel, the 75 people who were talking to each
other. If I select www.democracyforum.org.uk we get into the front
page of the main discussion group. On the left-hand side is a
listing. If I click on this[1],
I now display a list of all of the topics people have been talking
about. These are all of the headline topics. People are dealing
with lessons for the Public Administration Committee, digital
television, BBC Online, best practice from other countries, and
so on. Next to them the plus indicates that there have been various
other additions made to these contributions. I have clicked on
the one called "online deliberative democracy". That
first contribution has then had several sub-contributions made
to it. Of course I can read any of these. If I click on the third
one down on the right-hand side, it is displayed and so is the
contribution that particular person has made. It gives me the
title, the topic, who it is from, Irving Rappaport, and indeed
when and where he made it. He made that at 1.40 pm on Sunday.
We have contributions from all hours of the day and night. It
is interesting to see what people are doing at these times.
206. Where did these 75 people come from?
(Dr Bratt) These people were selected by Dr Coleman
in this particular case and invited to join this discussion group
because they have particular expertise in this area. In general
this could be anybody. With this technology we could invite anybody.
Any member of the general public could come along and apply to
be part of this discussion group. In this case it was a selected
discussion group and for your information it was carried on behind
user name password security because it was a closed group.
(Dr Coleman) It was largely self-selected. We announced
that we were going to run this, through various electronic journals
which would appeal to the kind of people we wanted, and almost
anybody who wanted to take part did take part.
(Dr Bratt) Basically they take part by making contributions
like this. They would type in and enter it and it would appear
and be read. If somebody has read this particular contribution,
you will see at the top there is a button called "reply"
and if I click on it then there is an input box there where any
other user of this discussion group could type in their reply,
which would then appear on the left-hand side if this was actually
running on the website. All this occurs immediately, so as soon
as somebody has finished typing and hits the button called "host"
then their contribution goes in or their comment goes straight
in and can be read immediately by anybody else. There is a button
on the top called "post" which puts up a similar dialogue
box but allows the user to start a new topic, a new thread as
it is known in the jargon. People can start new ideas or comment
on other ideas. The discussion progresses by people putting up
an idea and it is subject to discussion/comment from all of the
other users in the group and so it can develop. Some of these,
if I can find one very quickly, can get quite long. Opening government
to citizens, you can see has a big long list of 14 or 15 comments
below it, obviously a thread or a theme was pursued and developed
by the various people involved. They all, of course, make their
comments, which can be read on the right-hand side.
207. Is there a convention, as in conversation,
of not dominating?
(Dr Bratt) Very much so. We did produce a set of rules.
To be honest, this group pretty much knew the rules. Yes, there
is a convention which you can set out in the rules, although people
who are familiar with it, know it. Yes, you should not dominate,
you should not make your things too long. You should not make
too many points in one submission and so on and you should not
be replying and answering all the time every day, over and over
again. What happens is the web master, as it is called, I have
draconian powers, I can delete people and edit people and so on.
Wonderful powers: complete and absolute, including chucking them
off altogether. Stephen acts in a role which will be more relevant
to your question, he acts as moderator which is a light guiding
touch so we can tell people on the discussion or in private behind
the scenes: "Your behaviour is not really the done thing
in these circumstances. Please modify it". That usually works.
Mr White
208. That is only in closed discussion groups,
what do you do in the open discussion groups if somebody tries
to stop them?
(Dr Coleman) You can pre-moderate those as well.
209. But you are trying to open up a discussion,
that would close down a discussion.
(Dr Bratt) It does. We have to let it run to a certain
extent and pick out the worst offenders. The draconian power,
which I laugh about but is our big stick in these cases, we can
delete people's contribution. We can just wipe them out. That
is the ultimate thing. If you are seen to be abusing we will either
stop you making any more or wipe you out altogether. I know it
is draconian. Most people respond to a gentle reminder.
210. What is to stop you fixing the discussion,
fixing an agreement?
(Dr Bratt) In theory nothing at all, you have to trust
the reputation of Stephen and the Hansard Society. If you are
asking me as the web master, in theory of course I could interfere
with it. It depends on reputation, reputation is everything, that
is why a positive discussion like this could happen under the
auspices of the Hansard Society, which is a trusted name, trust
is the magic word in all this. Were something struck up under
another name then that would be a danger.
(Dr Coleman) In the early days of radio and television
phone-in programmes you had exactly the same questions asked.
What is to stop a radio station from choosing its own callers?
The answer is that you have to regulate within those organisations
and if they continue to do it, clearly it is going to discredit
the whole process.
(Dr Bratt) Just to say also, not that it is relevant
to this particular one, in the larger discussion groups, we do
keep statistics on users and how often they are used and everything
else. When you have a discussion group with thousands of users,
the statistical pattern can be quite revealing as well and that
allows us to do a fairly subtle job of moderating. Basically,
that is how a discussion group works with people contributing
original ideas, coming up with other ideas, it progresses like
that. Just to show you quickly, and it will be very quickly, there
are facilities like search facilities so once this discussion
is progressing, even for the relatively short time this one is
around, it is difficult to keep track of what is happening so
the user has an electronic search for key words so they can find
out whatever is happening. This will not work because I am not
online at the moment but I can type in a key word and it lists
all the contributions made under that key word. Indeed, one of
the things just to mention is that there are a whole set of extra
things under the wonderfully called "more" button. In
particular I would just mention to you, the access to mailing
list. just to explain, this sits on our web server and is accessed
by dialling into the web site and anybody who has the password
can read all of this, it is updated immediately. It is possible
also to take part in the discussion through e-mail, the same software
runs an e-mail system. So if people prefer to compose offline,
as it is known in the jargon, and then send an e-mail, that e-mail
appears on this discussion group. Indeed people can read the discussion
group by e-mail. It depends whether people are more comfortable
with the use of a web site or with e-mail, both are possible under
this system, and people did contribute in both ways. So the point
about this technology is it enables a disparate group of people
working at different times of the day and night to not only say
things but discuss things with each other. Roughly speaking that
is how we use the web and internet technology in this particular
circumstance.
(Dr Coleman) If I can just make some observations
about how the process worked in terms of participation. As we
said, 75 people participated, 55 men and 20 women. 52 per cent
of the participants contributed to the discussion during the four
week period and 313 messages were posted altogether. We coded
the contributions or messages in a number of ways, we coded them
in about 80 different ways but two that might be of interest here,
we coded for how many people made policy proposals and only 22
per cent of those coming to the site made a proposal in terms
of policy. Most of them were much more interested in discussing
their experiences, than in trying to help others to formulate
policies. That was quite important to us because we wanted to
find out just how much this will be a question of speech making
and fully formed opinions. Most of the opinions were not fully
formed although they were very clearly stated. We found also that
46 per cent of messages were direct responses to previous messages.
The discussion was characterised by real exchanges of views rather
than mere speech making. The discussion can be compared with 75
experts gathered together in a room for a meeting. How many in
that situation would have an opportunity to speak in the course
of an average length meeting? How easily could they set their
own agenda? To what extent would they listen to and learn from
one another? In the online version of this event, more than half
spoke; on average they contributed seven times each. Several participated
at no extra expense from Australia, Canada, the USA, Sweden, Finland
and France as well as either ends of the UK, and they had a month
in which to do all this, listen, learn and put their point of
view. You have copies of our report identifying key points of
evidence contributed during the discussion. The discussion is
also archived on the web site. In fact it will remain on the web
site forever more - it is in the public domain. I will confine
myself in this brief presentation to identifying some of the themes
addressed by contributors to the discussion. Firstly, there was
a very strong view that the way of electronic democracy developing
will be through the electronic delivery of government services.
There was a view that there would be an evolution from local authorities
and indeed central government providing information, providing
services to citizens via the web and via other digital media and
then bringing people in to participate, to offer points of view
and share experiences through the web so people will in a sense
have a learning curve started by Government leading to broader
participative democracy. There was a second view on the part of
the people who took part in this that it was the legislative wing
of government that was most important because that was the locus
of elected representation. A number of people said that in a sense
one had to distinguish between Government consultations, which
were very often consultations about finished policies, and parliamentary
or local authority consultations which might involve much more
public deliberation and is where input might count for something.
Thirdly, there was a view that there was a need to develop best
practices for elected representatives using new information and
communication technologies with a particular emphasis on avoiding
overload. There was a great benefit in this discussion from some
very useful contributions from Victor Pertin, who is an Australian
MP who decided to join in the discussion, and from certain people
in other countries, such as the Swedish telecommunications agency,
who were looking very seriously at ways of trying to avoid overload.
Indeed, somebody in charge of these matters at the Post Office
said that they were particularly interested in looking at some
of the technical solutions that might be needed there in terms
of mail filtering and so on. Mail filtering techniques are now
quite advanced. Next, the importance of locating e-democracy within
the existing political culture and in a sense that point speaks
for itself. I think there was a lot of recognition, very interesting
recognition to my mind, on the part of a lot of the discussion
participants that one should not talk about cyber space and the
new technologies in excessively utopian futuristic terms, one
has to locate whatever is going on in the world as it is. So,
for example, Lee Jasper from Operation Black Vote said that there
is no point in talking about greater participation occurring through
the internet unless you actually place the infrastructure for
access within the communities where people are actually doing
things already. You have to go to community centres, schools and
so on. Again a contributor from Help the Aged was interested in
looking at ways of being able to connect up to doctors' surgeries
and so on. Next there was a discussion about the limited access
to ICTs and about the future universality of digital television.
There was a very strong view that digital television was going
to be the means of universal access coming about, that was seen
as being the next step. There was particular consideration given
to access in relation to specific groups: women, ethnic minorities,
older users and young people. There was a consideration of examples
of international best practices, of which we can give you some
examples. There was a lot of talk about the need for discussion
moderation and regulation, establishing means by which you can
ensure that people understand how discussions should take place
and agree common protocols and regulate in terms of being sure
of the identity of people taking part in discussions. Finally,
there was some discussion raised by Professor James Fishkin from
Texas about deliberative polling online, about the idea of using
the internet as a means of not just running online focus groups
but charting the changes in the minds of groups of people as they
are presented with new information. That is something that the
Hansard Society is committed to doing as one of its next online
discussions. Moving towards a conclusion, let me now demonstrate,
if I may, some of the ways that ICTs are being used to enhance
the democratic process. I want to refer to four of them: first
of all, as a means of providing unmediated public information.
Secondly, as channels for organising and conducting campaigns.
Thirdly, as spaces in which citizens can participate. Fourthly,
as portals—or gateways—to information, offering simple
ways to find out information and guidance as to what information
means. Public information: local authority web sites are now ubiquitous,
although their qualities vary enormously. In the e-democracy discussion
there were several excellent contributions made about local council
sites. Indeed there was information given, and we were asked to
pass this onto your Committee, about a survey that has been conducted
involving all local authority sites. For some reason, I am afraid
I cannot really tell you, Hampshire County Council is something
people speak well of in these circles. In Brent, councillors are
now able to move motions and amendments via e-mail. Brent Council
in terms of its internal use of new technologies sees itself as
being a leader in this area. In Walsall there has been a great
deal of thinking about ways of involving local citizens via online
methods and a committee has been established to look at electronic
democracy methods. The United Kingdom Parliament web site offers
a wealth of information, but its main use is by those who already
know their way around the Parliamentary system. There are still
significant problems of navigation for the new user. Although
there is a great deal there, there is not necessarily a great
deal there unless you would have known how to find it had you
gone to the library. Some of the Government web sites are exceptionally
good and user friendly. The DETR is a good example of best practice
in this respect. These are sites in which a number of people have
reported finding the sort of information that they need. In the
United States information is much more available on the web than
in the United Kingdom, as you would probably expect. This is the
Freedom of Information home page. One of the things we looked
at was the FBI home page—I think as a bit of a joke—where
we decided to look up Anthony Blunt. We found that we could read
everything we wanted to under the United States Freedom of Information
whereas when we went to the United Kingdom page the only reference
we found to it was to the Public Administration Committee. Perhaps
that tells us something. In terms of online campaigning it is
often argued that political participation, as such, is not in
decline but traditional politics is in decline. The web offers
some support for this thesis. There is, in fact, a proliferation
of online campaigning, some of which is clearly innovative and
quite successful in engaging people. The Amnesty International
site, which is one of the campaign sites, has a huge number of
visits from members of the public all over the world, running
into tens of thousands every week. Then there is the McLibel site,
which really operates almost entirely online, it is a campaign,
to a very great extent, which has its existence and membership
entirely in a virtual sense. There is Friends of the Earth which,
again, is one of the successful ones which now has subscriptions
to online campaigning and indeed online donations—which
is a rather different area, one that there may be some regulation
about. There is also One World Online, I suggest one of the best
web sites you can find in terms of international news that you
probably would not be able to read about in such depth anywhere
else. On citizen participation, I mentioned earlier that Minnesota
e-politics has been the most successful United States project
of its kind. Its founder, Stephen Clift, took part in the e-democracy
discussion and made some very useful contributions to our discussion.
It is now the case that politicans in Minnesota devote as much
energy to online campaigns as to traditional media campaigning.
The election of the new governor to Minnesota may or may not testify
to that being a good thing but nevertheless Governor Ventura seemed
to have run much of his campaign for office via the internet.
BBC Online has developed a number of fora for political debates
which have been extremely successful. In truth, this does not
compete with the thousands who participate in the fora discussing
Eastenders and the Antiques Road Show; these are
by far the most popular discussions BBC Online runs. There is
now a forum for discussing the work of Parliament—which
the Hansard Society is running in collaboration with the BBC.
From next April there will be an expanded, high profile democracy
section on the BBC Online site and this may provide a forum for
the kind of national dialogue that e-democracy enthusiasts have
hoped for. Many people have argued you need a trusted place where
people are naturally going to go to in order for that to happen.
At the moment the BBC Online site is regarded by most people as
the most likely candidate for that role. In other countries there
is a growth of successful dialogues between citizens and their
representatives. We have here an example of one going on at the
moment between members of the Dutch Government and Dutch citizens
in which government ministers are coming online—not live,
not in a chat, in technical terms—but for two or three days
at a time to answer questions or to have questions answered for
them which are put by members of the public. A very successful
one was the campaign "Americans Discuss Social Security",
something that, perhaps, became one of the most important examples
in the mid-1990s in the United States of national discussion about
the social security policy and most of which happened through
these virtual town meetings. Canada has been one of those places
that has been particularly successful in running e-government.
They now have the electronic Commons and the Community Access
Program, which is particularly interesting because it has actually
set a number of access points that each area must have before
the criteria of democratic participation can be met, which seems
to be a very mature decision to have made.
Chairman
211. Could you explain to me what you have just
said?
(Dr Coleman) In a sense what they said is that any
area wanting to participate can only participate if there are
enough free access points, in libraries and community centres,
that they can use. It is rather like what we are doing with the
domestic violence consultation. We are not simply saying to women,
"You can take part", we are saying, "You can take
part and we have an obligation to enable you to take part".
212. I thought you might have been saying that
something can only count as a participation or a consultation
exercise if certain tests have been met in terms of access.
(Dr Coleman) Yes.
213. You were not?
(Dr Coleman) Yes. They seem to be saying that unless
the degree of access in a particular area has reached a certain
point, participation is not regarded as being legitimate for the
purposes of the programme of consultation that they are running.
Mr White
214. How do you define access?
(Dr Coleman) In this case access to the internet.
215. By individuals or by groups?
(Dr Coleman) By the population of a particular community.
Mr Browne
216. How do you define area, is it by geographical
area?
(Dr Coleman) Yes. Unfortunately this[2]
is not live, of course, I wish I could click on and show you.
They have actually got a map and they literally point it out.
I think this is a real innovation in terms of community access
because they have really tried to establish clear criteria as
to what access means rather than simply saying "Here we are,
everyone join in".
Mr White
217. Presumably, community of interest, you
are talking about a different subject, community interest groups,
you would consider that as valid access rather than geographical
area?
(Dr Coleman) Yes. I think what we are trying to establish
here is that any group wanting to join in any of these consultations
or discussions needs to have the ability to do so on an equal
basis, sorry not on an equal basis but on a fair basis, on a sufficient
basis.
Chairman
218. Thank you very much.
(Dr Coleman) Finally, to come to the question of portals,
one of the downsides of the Information Society is information
overload. Portals or gateways to information are a useful innovation
and many believe that digital citizens of the future will do very
little surfing around the web sites and will become accustomed
to being guided to information via trusted portals. In the USA
portals may well play a key role as people turn to the internet
for information during the coming presidential elections. Even
in the mid term elections last time more people were going to
the internet on a number of occasions than were going to television
at any time apart from the TV debate. There is an assumption that
by the end of this year, the US presidential election may take
that form to an even greater degree. This is Democracy Network
which is quite a successful one. This is Project Vote Smart. There
is also another one, which we are not showing you here, which
is Web, White and Blue, which is funded by the Martle Foundation,
all of which provide an enormous amount of very useful information
as a guide to voters. In the UK, people wanting to participate
in the life of their communities can use the BBC Online Web Wise
portal which offers a guide to access points, community networks
and efficient ways of using the technology. This is the nearest
that we have in the UK to a directory of community networks and
ways of using them. The Hansard Society has been working with
Web Wise to create a portal to UK democracy, how to contact your
councillor, MP, MEP, MSP and which one to contact on which matters.
In conclusion then, it would be hard not to see some potential
in the new media for the encouragement of public participation
in the democratic process and the strengthening of that process
as a result. For this to happen requires experimentation and careful
evaluation, particularly at this stage before digital television
turns many of these things into matters of universality. That
has been the main purpose of the exercise on which I have just
reported and the programme of which it is a part.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for that.
Mr White
219. First of all, an apology because I was
meant to take part in this. I was one of the ones who agreed to
take part and then did not do it.
(Dr Coleman) You were a lurker.
1 Web page not now available; see www.democracyforum.org.uk/edemocracy.asp
for archived discussion. Back
2
(Indicating computer screen). Back
|
